Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 36 (GAU)

MAHENDRA NARAYAN NATH v. HAREN BORO

2014-01-10

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. BR Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kamrup in Civil Suit No.70 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short hereinafter called ‘The Act’). So the short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether trial court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Act. It appears that the plaintiff (Petitioner herein) filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the land described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The defendants, on being noticed, filed written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court framed issues. The parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 6 and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed on merits. It is against this judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure because against such dismissal no first appeal lies under the scheme of the Act. Having perused the records of the case and having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents because no one appeared for the petitioner, I am inclined to dismiss this revision as in my opinion no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree. This being a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am essentially confined to examine the issue relating to the jurisdiction or when there lies any apparent error of law on the face of the record affecting jurisdiction of the Court. Having perused the impugned judgment, I am not able to notice any error requiring any interference of this Court with the judgment and decree. The impugned findings are all findings of facts and are capable of being rendered on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Having perused the impugned judgment, I am not able to notice any error requiring any interference of this Court with the judgment and decree. The impugned findings are all findings of facts and are capable of being rendered on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. The impugned finding is neither against the pleadings and nor against any evidence and nor against any provision of law. In other words, the findings are such that it is capable of being recorded on appreciation of evidence and were recorded accordingly. This Court not being an appellate court cannot undertake the exercise of doing appreciation of whole evidence under its revisional jurisdiction. In the light of this settled position of law, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am unable to notice any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference. To conclude, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this revision would not come in the way of the plaintiff to file regular civil suit on the basis of his title/ownership. On such suit being filed, the Trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law on merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of the suit out of which this revision arises and dismissal of this revision. No cost.